TedM

I see that you expanded your original to what is above. All of my above comments would still apply to A,B,C,C',B',A', so I'll address just the changes:


You now seem even more confident than before the expansion, yet I don't understand why. The alleged chiasm has more elements but is now less symmetrical. We now have

A,B,C,Da,Db,C',Db',Da',B',A' as opposed to A,B,C,D,C',B',A'

And since Mark 12:24 is no longer the center of the alleged chiasm, it would seem to take away from your main point--that Mark's reference to "scripture" was a veiled reference to Paul's writings. Have I misunderstood?


Also, I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the two Chreia's. Where do they come from and what meaning are you giving them?

Lastly the D-B and D'-B' lines you have added appear to me to be nothing more than Jesus stating their ignorance and then enlightening them with the answer they seek.

To me you have created a chiasm out of a natural kind of dialogue. For example, consider the following:

A How many homeruns did Babe Ruth hit?
B You really don't know your baseball do you?
A' He hit 714 homeruns, which is 2nd best of all time.
B'. Look it's right here in the Book of Baseball Records.

This is the same kind of structure you have--C,Db,C',Db', yet you have concluded that it is an "intense" structure. While I certainly made up the above conversation, it isn't unnatural at all, and I see no reason to call it "intense".

Maybe the Chreai holds the key to why you find greater value to this new alleged chiasm than before, but at present it looks like a step backwards from your original instead of forwards.

ted

yummyfur

Firstly I would state that Mark 12:28-34 is that one must love god with your whole being, that is the greatest commandment.

So there actually is complementation

Mk 12:13-17 Idolatrous Roman coins belong to Ceasar
Mk 12:28-34 Your whole being belongs to god

In Mk 12:13-17 We know what is Ceasar's (the denarius), but it is unclear what is god's, Mk 12:28-34 answers what is god's.

Also Mk 12:28-34 qoutes Deuteronomy 6:4. A few verses later Deuteronomy goes on to say that god's commandments would be on their hearts, and they should also attach the words to their hands and heads. So it makes it even clearer, why is the denarius Ceasar's? because it is inscribed with his name and likeness, therefore you are god's because you are inscribed with his commands and made in his image.

Also a little later Deuteronomy 6:16 mentions that "you will not put the Lord your God to the test" which of course brings us back to Mk 12:13-17 which starts out with the Pharisees and Herodians putting Jesus to the test, and Jesus saying in Mk 12:15 "why are you testing me?" Further more the reason they are putting him to the test, is to come up with a reason to seize him, this brings us back to Mk 12:24-38 again for it qoutes part of Leviticus 19:18 "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" the begining of this verse though, starts out with "'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people", exactly what they are attempting to do, by putting him to the test.

This whole sequence can also be tied back to Psalm 118:9, "It is better to take refuge in the lord, than to trust in princes". Ceasar gives you what for his denarius? god gives you resurrection. And of course, parts of Psalm 118 can be read as some kind of intimation of eternal life.

Of course the reference in Mk 12:24 is, that if you don't know your scripture, not just the parts qouted directly in Mk, the reader might not get all of this.

TedM

Excellent points! You just provided a number of pretty good further evidences for alternative explanations for the grouping of the issues as we see them in Mark--without ANY need for Paul, to add to the ones I gave above. I'd say that overall when one considers all the factors the case for Mark using Paul here is weak.

ted

Vorkosigan

Only because yummyfur ignored Ps 110. Ooops!

yummyfur

Sorry, I was only trying to come up with an explanation to the two parts that you said had no complementation or opposition.

It seems to me that qouting ps 118 and ps 110 are both vieled references to the Temple, or Jesus as the Temple. Psalm 118 qoute talks about the cornerstone and ps 110 is about the "footstool for god's feet" which if you read 1 Chronicles 28:2

"Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: As for me,I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building:"

Taken together, they imply that something unexpected, will become the Temple, that is in ps118 the cornerstone will be a rejected stone, and in ps110 the temple will be made from god's enemies.


Also, I would like to say that Mk 12:13-17 is often interpreted as "obey the government" (as TedM seems to say) especially by later christians who had a vested interest in such interpretation, it seems such a reading is very unlikely.

The point of the story is that the Pharisees and Herodians have set a perfect trap that is unescapable. If Jesus says pay the poll-tax, the Pharisee will charge him with blasphemy, if Jesus says don't pay the poll tax, the Herodians will charge him with revolution, if he doesn't answer he will look the fool. Jesus has made sectarians join together to use a point of contention between them, to their believed mutual benefit against a percieved mutual enemy. Not only does he do this, he then successfully comes up with an answer that removes him from certain death.

How does Jesus do this, by subtely pointing out to the Pharisee that the coin is a defiled idolatrous coin, and no good Pharisee would want to be carrying such a coin, it is defiled, get it out of Israel, by giving it back to the Romans who made it. You are not paying a poll tax, you are cleansing Israel, and even the Herodians are, despite themselves. The Pharisee cannot complain about this and neither can the self interested and greedy Herodian. Jesus commits neither blasphemy nor revolution.

I think that possibly one of the earliest purposes of Christianity, though it is sadly ironic, was an attempt to overcome the sectarian madness of the first century Jewish world.